Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: underexposure compensation  (Read 7173 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2005, 08:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

If you're going to do noise reduction, do it immediately following RAW conversion. I don't do anything special if I think I might do double noise reduction; my goal is to always kill as much noise and as little detail as possible. I usually make a new noise profile for each image; an accurate noise profile seems to be key to effective noise reduction. After Neat Image, I run Focus magic and my sharpening action, do any color correction if necessary (usually not, due to having Camera RAW calibrated to my cameras), curves to adjust tonality, etc. If sharpening brings out too much noise, I'll run a second Neat Image pass making a new noise profile (the sharpening and stuff changes the noise characteristics) and then call it good. I may fade the last Neat Image pass to dial it back if it gets too aggressive.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2005, 11:20:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I bought Neat Image before Noise Ninja came out, and after comparing them concluded that while both are very good at what they do, the differences between them probably don't justify owning both. If I owned neither, I might get Noise Ninja, but Noise Ninja doesn't offer enough advantage over Neat Image to justify buying it IMO. Both programs are capable of excellent results.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2005, 09:38:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Exposure compensation can work.  The shadow highlight tool can work.

The best solution is to pay someone to beat you with a stick everytime you click the shutter and do not check the histogram.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2005, 10:39:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Basically windows is 2.2 gamma. 1.0 gamma and 1.4 gamma and 1.8 gamma can be used depending on the amount of underexposure It it is worth the bother tracking down the information to learn this technique
Don't bother. You can change the gamma by moving the upper-middle slider in the Levels dialog, and tweaking gamma will not make the highlights white. The Exposure adjustment in the RAW converter is a far better option.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2005, 08:51:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
False profiles in PS will rescue an underexposed image Dan Margulis in Professional PS goes into the topic in detail On the disc that comes with it he provides the profiles You can create them yourself but it is fiddly Basically windows is 2.2 gamma. 1.0 gamma and 1.4 gamma and 1.8 gamma can be used depending on the amount of underexposure It it is worth the bother tracking down the information to learn this technique
Not really. When you convert from this profile, the degradation will at that time be introduced. The benefit of using a profile to change the color appearance is speed. Itís a heck of a lot faster to Assign a profile to correct the color appearance than use all kinds of edits. But thereís no free lunch. While the image is in the current color space with this profile, youíve not changed the numbers but when you convert, thatís when the time comes to pay the piper.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
bobrobert
Guest
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2005, 11:11:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not really. When you convert from this profile, the degradation will at that time be introduced. The benefit of using a profile to change the color appearance is speed. Itís a heck of a lot faster to Assign a profile to correct the color appearance than use all kinds of edits. But thereís no free lunch. While the image is in the current color space with this profile, youíve not changed the numbers but when you convert, thatís when the time comes to pay the piper.

You obviously haven't read Dan's book When you use the false profiles you are assigning the profile It is accessed from Mode > Assign profile Michael Kieran in PS Color Correction covers the same ground It is as I previously stated worth learning
Logged
bobrobert
Guest
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2005, 01:27:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you saying what Dan Margulis says on False profiles is wrong and should be diregarded?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2005, 01:46:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you saying what Dan Margulis says on False profiles is wrong and should be diregarded?
No, did you read this in any post?

I donít agree with the term false profile. Itís a matter of semantics but the profile isnít false. You could called it right, preferred or a tweaked profile.

I donít agree that the use is lossless which I donít think Dan claims. When the profile is used for conversion to any color space, the data loss will now be produced. Do it on high bit to minimize this.

I donít believe Danís opinion that editing in high bit is of no use and in fact if you subscribe to his color theory list, the last few days discussion have been very interesting. Iíve uploaded a file and tests that appear to confirm that there IS a quality advantage to editing in high bit on a real world image.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2005, 04:38:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Let he who has never committed this sin strike the first blow.  Be honest, now.  Smiley
I did it just after my post on the subject.  (Two shots, tho.)

BTW, did EC or Shadow/Highlight or whatever the other suggestion was help?  Rescue any shots?

(Never mind.  I replied while reading page 2.  Should have read page 3 first.)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6903


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2005, 08:35:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan, I've been using Neat Image for dealing with film grain (processing my legacy negatives) and do exactly what you do - let it profile each image, tweak if necessary to get the right balance between grain reduction and preservation of image detail, then sharpen immediately afterward, except I use PK Sharpener Pro. For my digital work I'm using Noise Ninja instead of Neat Image. Have you compared them for digital noise?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad